Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Bharatbhai Harjibhai Patel on 27 June, 2023
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
C/LPA/422/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 422 of 2020
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16716 of 2018
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2020
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 422 of 2020
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 750 of 2020
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16441 of 2018
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2020
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 750 of 2020
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16441 of 2018
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 457 of 2020
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20280 of 2018
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2020
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 457 of 2020
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20280 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE A.J.DESAI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
Page 1 of 13
Downloaded on : Mon Jul 03 20:32:13 IST 2023
C/LPA/422/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2023
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
BHARATBHAI HARJIBHAI PATEL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.KRUTIK PARIKH, AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR AR THACKER, ADVOCATE with MR.SHIVANG THACKER (888) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.
JUSTICE A.J.DESAI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Date : 27/06/2023
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
A.J.DESAI)
1. By way of the present Letters Patent Appeal
under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the State
of Gujarat through the Secretary, Revenue
Department, the Superintendent of Stamp and
Inspector General of Registration, the Collector,
Kutch and the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty,
have challenged oral judgement dated
17.10.2019 rendered in Special Civil Application
No.16716 of 2018, oral judgement dated
C/LPA/422/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2023
23.12.2019 rendered in Special Civil Application
No.20280 of 2018 and oral judgement dated
17.10.2019 rendered in Special Civil Application
No.16441 of 2018, by which the learned Single
Judge has accepted the petitions filed by the
present respondents by directing the appellant
no.2 to implement the recommendation made by
the District Level Committee in connection with,
so far as petitioners of Special Civil Application
No.16716 of 2018 are concerned, Revenue
Survey Nos.309 paiki 1, 294/1 and 294/2
belonging to original petitioner no.1, land
bearing revenue survey nos.284/2, 284/4,
285/p/2, 781 paiki P/36/2 belonging to original
petitioner no.2 and land bearing revenue survey
nos.214/1, 224/2, 213, 311/1 belonging to
original petitioner no.3 of village Khedoi, so far
as petitioners of Special Civil Application
No.20280 of 2018 are concerned, land bearing
C/LPA/422/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2023
Survey Nos.252p belonging to original petitioner
no.1, land bearing revenue survey no.10
belonging to original petitioner no.2, land
bearing revenue survey no.13 belonging to
original petitioner no.3 and land bearing revenue
survey no.250p belonging to original petitioner
no.4 of village Shinai, Taluka:Ghandhidham,
District:Kutch, and so far as petitioner of Special
Civil Application No.16441 of 2018 is concerned,
land bearing Survey Nos.478 and 479 of
Village:Bhuj-Sim, Taluka:Bhuj, to show the
correct jantri rates at par with other respondents
of the same village.
2. Appeal came to be admitted by an order dated
27.08.2020. In response to notice issued by this
Court, the respondents have appeared through
learned advocate Mr.A.R.Thacker.
C/LPA/422/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2023
3. During the pendency of the present appeal,
additional affidavit has been filed by appellant
no.2 on behalf of office of Superintendent of
Stamps, to which, rejoinder has been filed.
4. Short facts arising are as under.
5. That the petitioners are residents of three
different villages viz. Khedoi, Shinai and Bhuj. To
have their agricultural land located on national
highway passing through the village.
6. Under the Stamp Act, the State of Gujarat
publishing the Rights of land throughout the
State. The same register is known as 'Jantri'
which reflects the rate of the land as per the
geographical location of the immovable property.
7. The State of Gujarat periodically revises Jantri
rate, accordingly, a Jantri was declared in the
year 2011 for fixing the price of the land in the
C/LPA/422/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2023
entire State of Gujarat. Accordingly, the jantri
rate was also prescribed for the above referred
villages.
8. Some of the residents of the aforesaid villages
sought correction in the Jantri rate. The
Committee which was formed under the
Government Resolutions sent the corrected rate
of different survey numbers of the aforesaid
villages. The same was accepted by the State
Authorities. The lands of the present
respondents were not included in the corrected
Jantri rate and therefore they made the
representation for correcting the Jantri rate and
at par with the rates of the same villages. The
Committee consisting of the various officers
including District Collector who is also appellant
before this Court had opined that corrections are
required to be made in the Jantri rate. The
C/LPA/422/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2023
Superintendent rejected the same by
communication dated 03.08.2018 so far as LPA
Nos.422 of 2020 and 750 of 2020 are concerned,
and by communication dated 04.08.2018 so far
as LPA No.457 of 2020 is concerned.
9. Being aggrieved with the same decision, the
petition came to be filed.
10. The learned Single Judge after considering
various Government Resolutions accepted the
petition and directed as stated herein above.
11. Mr.Krutik Parikh learned AGP would submit that
the learned Single Judge has committed error in
accepting the petition and directing the
authorities to make correction. He would submit
that the learned Single Judge has wrongly relied
upon resolutions dated 21.09.2010 and
31.03.2011. He would submit that the
C/LPA/422/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2023
Committee shall be constituted only for rate
mentioned in the Jantri. However, the
Committee cannot decide the rate and such
opinion is given would not be binding to the
authority established under the Bombay Stamp
Act.
12. He would submit that the land of the same
village may fetch different value and the same
would depend upon the location of the land and
therefore all the lands of the same village cannot
be treated at par and therefore the learned
Single Judge ought not to have allowed the
petitions.
13. He would submit that the same decision which
was accepted by the Stamp Authorities in the
year 2016 with regard to the land, is not binding
and therefore the authority may reject the
recommendation made by the Committee.
C/LPA/422/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2023
Hence, the appeals are required to be allowed.
He therefore would submit that the matters are
required to be remanded to the appellant no.2
herein - the Superintendent of Stamp and
Inspector General of Registration for
consideration afresh.
14. Learned advocate Mr.A.R.Thacker appearing for
the respondents has supported the decision of
the learned Single Judge.
15. By taking us through the various documents, he
would submit that the Committee which has
been established pursuant to the Government
Resolution dated 21.09.2010, is required to be
read with another resolution dated 31.03.2011.
He would submit that the present respondents
approached the authority for correction in the
entry since similarly situated residents of
aforesaid villages got approval from appellant
C/LPA/422/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2023
no.2 about the location of the lands. By taking
us through the recommendations by the
Committee, he would submit that the lands are of
the similar nature of the village and therefore,
the allegations are required to be made with
regard to Jantri rate.
16. He would further submit that the communication
dated 03.08.2018 does not disclose any reason
for rejecting the recommendation of the
Committee. By taking us through the same
order, he would submit that the arguments
advanced by the learned AGP before this Court
are not at all reflected from the said order. He
would further submit that by taking us through
the details of a report which is produced along
with the petition and a communication dated
22.04.2016 which refers to the corrected rate of
the lands belong to the aforesaid villages, the
C/LPA/422/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2023
petitioner had sought similar Jantri rate which
was accepted by the Stamp Authority and as
requested, the authority to mention the Jantri
rate with regard to their land only which has
been rightly accepted by the learned Single
Judge.
17. He therefore would submit that the appeal be
dismissed.
18. We have heard learned advocates appearing for
the respective parties.
19. By Government Resolution dated 21.09.2010, it
was resolved that if there is a mistake in Jantri
rate or mistake in data entry etc. a Committee
consisting of the District Collector, District
Development Officer, Town Planning Officer,
Deputy Collector (Stamp Duty), is empowered to
correct the same and the same is required to be
C/LPA/422/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2023
carry out forthwith. Similar is the resolution
dated 31.03.2011. In the present case, when an
issue was raised by the present respondent
about correcting the data entry since similarly
situated land owners, Jantri rate was approved
by the Committee and accepted by the Stamp
Officer, the Committee has opined that
corrections are required to be made in the Jantri
rates. One of the members who has recommend
the said rates, is indirectly challenging his own
order. However, we would not like to comment
on this issue.
20. We have also gone through a communication
dated 22.04.2016, by which, a particular amount
has been assigned as Jantri rate for a particular
land which is for a village of the present
respondents are residing.
C/LPA/422/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2023
21. The Committee has opined to give the same rate
which has been accepted by the learned Single
Judge which does not call for any interference.
22. Apart from the technicalities, we are of the firm
view that all persons who are similarly situated
are required to be treated at par, which has been
ordered by the learned Single Judge and which is
hereby affirmed.
23. In view of the above, all these appeals are hereby
dismissed. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
Connected Civil Application will also not survive
and they are also disposed of.
(A.J.DESAI, ACJ)
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J)
ANKIT SHAH
